THE retirement of
Rabbi Judah Leib Cohen had marked the beginning of the ascendancy in
the Ashkenazi community of London of a family which was to dominate
it, in both the spiritual and the secular spheres, for half a century
and more.

Benjamin Levy had a
relative,1 Hartwig (Naphtali Hertz) Moses, of Hamburg, who had
emigrated to Breslau with strong recommendations to the Count of
Schaffgotsche. He had prospered in his new home, and was known far
and wide as a supporter of Hebrew scholarship. He had two sons, who
varied their careers in the traditional Jewish fashion--the elder,
Uri or Aaron, born in 1670, devoting himself to study; the younger,
Moses, born in 1675, to commerce. The former (known also as Uri
Phoebus), after receiving a sound Rabbinic training at home, married
a daughter of the illustrious Samuel ben Uri-Schraga of Schidlow,
sometime Rabbi of Fürth, whose famous work Beth Shemuel--a
commentary on the juristic code Eben haEzer, and the first book
issued from Sabbatai Bassista's press at Dyhernfurth - had been
produced at Hartwig Moses' cost. In his father-in-law's house,
Aaron's Talmudic education was completed, and before returning to
Breslau he directed a Rabbinical college in Poland.

In 1697, the Council
of Breslau made one of its periodical attempts to expel the Jews. It
was natural at this juncture for Hartwig Moses' younger son to go to
seek his fortune in London, where his kinsman Benjamin Levy had
established himself so handsomely. Here he became known (the father's
name serving as the basis of his own surname, as was usual at the
time) as Moses Hart. His cousin took him into his business as his
confidential assistant: later on, he branched out on his own, and by
1704 had prospered sufficiently to become enrolled as one of the
twelve authorised "Jew Brokers", in succession to the Sephardi
magnate David de Faro.

His position in the
community was reinforced by his family connexions. Simon Lazarus, of
Goslar, who had accompanied him from Breslau, was his maternal uncle
: the latter's son, Lazarus Simon, and Meir Wagg, of Frankfort, were
his brothers-in-law: David Prager had married his cousin. (It was
with reason that Johann Schudt reported that the London Jews were
"much brother-in-lawed" [sehr geschwägert].) Unlike
Benjamin Levy, Moses Hart was associated with the Ashkenazi synagogue
from the moment of his arrival, and took the part in its
administration which his position warranted. In 1704, the year of the
other's death, he was acting as the lay head of the
community.

It was natural for
him in such circumstances to press the claims to official recognition
of his brother, who had followed him from the Continent and was now
known to the outside world as Aaron Hart. The latter had not been on
the best of terms with the retiring Rabbi, Judah Leib Cohen, and had
taken some part in the disputes that preceded the latter's
withdrawal. For this reason, it had been considered proper that he
ought not profit from it and should accept no official appointment in
London for at least three years to come (it was said, indeed, that he
had bound himself to this effect by oath). But, with his training,
his experience, and his connexions, it was not easy to enforce such a
restriction. Before long he was performing Rabbinical functions; a
little later on, he formally accepted the appointment.2 He was to
remain in office for over half a century, until 1756, witnessing the
inconsiderable community over which he had at first presided increase
in numbers during his incumbency to some thousands, with offshoots in
more than one provincial city.

His first years of
office were anything but tranquil. Glückel of Hameln (that
delightfully garrulous Hamburg Jewess whose Memoirs entitle her to
the name of a German-Jewish Pepys, and are an invaluable source of
information for the social life of the period) had among her brood of
children a daughter named Freudche. To her mother's delight, the
child had married Mordecai, son of Moses ben Leib, or Moses Libusch,
one of the founders of the Altona-Hamburg community, whose name was a
byeword in Germany for his wealth, his learning and his nobility of
character. Mordecai (or Marcus) Moses, as the young man was called,
followed the example of other members of the Hamburg community and
went to London to seek his fortune, in the additional calling of
dealer in precious stones.3 Later on, he was joined temporarily by
his brother-in-law, Mordecai Hameln, who as a child of five had been
so petted by Prince Maurice of Nassau and the future Frederick III of
Prussia, when they attended the marriage of his sister Zipporah at
Cleves.

One of Marcus Moses'
closest business associates was a certain Abraham Nathan, whom he
accompanied more than once to the Continent. It would seem that the
two and Sampson Mears, R. Aberle's partner, homesick for the
scholarly traditions of Hamburg, wished to set up in London a Beth
haMidrash for study, with a synagogue attached, on the model of the
famous Klaus in their native city. Early in 1704, they went so far as
to make preparations for converting Nathan's house in St. Mary Axe
for the purpose. It is possible that they had no idea of seceding
from the community, and they maintained that the new place of worship
would be strictly subordinate to the house of study. Nevertheless,
Moses Hart felt not only that the dignity of his brother, the Rabbi,
was likely to be prejudiced by the scheme, but also that the new
institution would undermine the position of the existing Ashkenazi
synagogue, over which he then presided, and would tend to increase
anti-Jewish feeling among the general population. He accordingly
enlisted the collaboration of the head of the Spanish and Portuguese
community, and the two appealed for support to the Court of Aldermen
of the City of London:

Tuesday, 20
March, 1704

Mr. Abraham
Mendez and Mr. Moses Hart now acquainting this Court that Abraham
Nathan an Inhabitant in St. Mary Axe Samson Mears inhabiting in
Goodmans Fields and Marcus Moses of Whitechapel Jews of the German
Nation and others were erecting a New Synagogue in St. Mary Axe
aforesaid without permission of this Court. It is ordered that the
said Abraham Nathan Sampson Mears and Marcus Moses be summoned to
attend this Court upon Thursday next to shew cause why they
presume to take upon them to erect a new Place for Jewish Worship
without any authority for the same, and that the said Mr. Mendez
and Mr. Hart be present at the same time.

Thursday, 22
March, 1704 Upon examination of the Complaint made unto this
Court, upon Tuesday last that Abraham Nathan Sampson Moses
[sic] Marques Moses and others, Jews of the German Nation
were erecting a Synagogue in St. Mary Axe. After hearing both
Parties in the presence of each other and it appearing unto this
Court that the said Building was fitted up and designed by the
Parties complained of for a Synagogue or place of Jewish worship
and for a Colledge or Schoole for the education and instruction of
Youth and others according to the Jewish religion. This Court doth
declare that they will not permit nor suffer the said place to be
converted or turned into a Synagogue for the exercise of the said
Jewish religion or for a Schoole or Colledge for ye education and
instruction of any Persons in the Jewish Law or Religion and
therefore doth order and require that no person or persons do
presume to convert the said place into a Synagogue Colledge or
Schoole, or to use any Jewish worship therein as they will answere
the same at their peril.

This intervention
effectively suppressed the secessionist movement. To reinforce it,
moreover, a fresh communal regulation was passed forbidding under
pain of excommunication any further attempt to establish a separate
synagogue. To this, all members were compelled to subscribe, the
ringleaders of the revolt binding themselves to forfeit £500
each --half payable to Her Majesty the Queen, half to the poor--if
they contravened this solemn pact.

Shortly afterwards,
Moses Hart was succeeded as presiding officer of the synagogue by Reb
Aberle, who had himself at one time shown separatist tendencies and
had even set up a rival communal butcher (thus seriously imperilling
the stability of the communal finances, partly based on a meat-tax);
moreover, relations between him and the Hart brothers had been
strained owing to business differences. But all this now belonged to
the past; indeed, he was now on the best of terms with Rabbi Aaron,
who now seemed to be his instrument.4 He was thus able to act as a
communal dictator. Marcus Moses remained a stormy petrel of the
community. He prospered in his business of gem-dealing to such an
extent that Reb Aberle now considered him a dangerous rival: nor
could the latter forget that notwithstanding the disparity of years
he had formerly been a suitor for the hand of Freudche, the other's
wife. A violent quarrel took place between the two men: and it was
accentuated not only by their argumentative natures but also by their
scholarly propensities--not reinforced, however, in the case of the
younger of the two, by conspicuous scholarly attainments.

It happened that on
Sunday, August 27th, 1706, Rabbi Aaron Hart, acting in strict
privacy, arranged a conditional divorce for a certain Asher (Anschel)
Cohen--a notorious ne'er-do-well who, laden with debt, was about to
sail for the West Indies and wished to leave his wife free to marry
again if he should not be heard of again. Old Rabbi Aaron of Dublin,
whose son-in-law had been ruined at cards by Cohen, was naturally not
asked to participate, being an interested party. The document (a very
complicated one according to rabbinic regulations) was accordingly
drawn up by the official scribe of the Sephardi community, Jacob da
Silva: and two scholarly witnesses were found, Isaac ben Joel and
Menachem ben Isaac Cohen. However, immediately the news was generally
known, Marcus Moses began to criticise the entire proceedings, which
he stigmatised as being contrary to Jewish law and practice: for (from
what he remembered of what was customary in similar cases at Hamburg)
such secrecy was irregular, and he considered it quite impossible to
fulfil all the formalities so expeditiously without making a blunder.
He was even willing to back his opinion: he told his neighbour in
Synagogue, when he heard the news that evening, that he would lay
five guineas that the document was invalid, and later asserted with
even more confidence that he would wager his diamond ring on
it.

Jews traditionally
allow themselves a considerable degree of latitude in most
intellectual exercises. Nevertheless, ever since the days of "Rabbenu
Tam" in the twelfth century, to question the validity of a divorce
had been regarded as a heinous offence, which automatically rendered
the person responsible liable to excommunication; for such criticism
ipso facto impugned the validity of any subsequent marriage and the
legitimacy of the offspring. Aaron Hart, a peaceful soul, asked some
of his congregants to warn the critic, and even proposed to visit him
in his own house to advise him of the consequences of his action. But
Marcus Moses remained obdurate: and, when the learned Johanan
Holleschau, the Moravian talmudist who was acting as tutor to his
sons, undertook to speak to him about the matter, the angry magnate
all but ordered him out of the house.

As a compromise,
Hart suggested that the matter should be laid before a Rabbinical
court for adjudication. The other agreed, with the reservation that
only the Rabbinate of the Sephardi community, which stood outside the
quarrel, was competent for the purpose. It was accordingly
constituted, the members being Haham David Nieto, the Dayan David
Yerez, and Aaron Hart himself. But the inclusion of the Rabbi in the
tribunal determined Moses not to recognise its authority: and, when
the examination of witnesses took place on Tuesday, September 3rd,
1706, he failed to put in an appearance. Instead, he took Johanan
Holleschau to live with him and with his aid prepared a
counter-attack. The latter managed to secure a copy of the
depositions, set about obtaining assistance and counsel for his
patron, and communicated with the latter's brother in Hamburg, the
wealthy and learned Hendele Cohen (an intimate friend of Haham Zevi)
in order to canvass local support. Aaron Hart, meanwhile, was doing
his best to placate his critic, and intimated that, if the other
consented to withdraw his strictures and submit to the lesser ban for
thirty days--little more than a mark of contrition--he would be
recompensed by the signal honour of being called up to the reading of
the Law on the approaching New Year and Day of Atonement, among the
great ones of the community.

All this time, Reb
Aberle had been away from England. In Hamburg, probably, he learned
how his rival in commercial and matrimonial affairs had affronted the
properly-constituted authorities in the congregation, and how they
were prepared to compromise with him in a fashion which would leave
his dignity enhanced rather than impaired. Towering with rage, he
sent home forbidding Aaron Hart to take any further action in the
matter, and on his return to England saw to it that the idea of
reconciliation was thrown to the winds. Marcus Moses was formally put
under the Ban to which his conduct had legally exposed him. This was
no slight matter. Men shunned him as they would the plague: contact
with him in the street and synagogue was avoided: he was permitted
participation in no ceremonial observance, however pressing his need
might be: he was even denied the privilege of bestowing charity, as
the very paupers would no longer visit his house. Had not the members
of the Sephardi congregation remained friendly, the boycott might
have resulted in his financial ruin. The affair became the talk of
the town. It was discussed on 'Change; and men spoke of it even in
the Judengasse of Frankfort, where the chronicler Schudt garnered
spiteful details.5

At this season of
the year, with the High Holydays approaching, the position of the
excommunicated magnate was intolerable. Brought to a sense of
realities, he offered a guarantee of £500 that he would submit
to the decision of the Rabbinical authorities. On Nieto's advice,
Hart consulted Rabbi Leib Charif of Amsterdam, who recommended that
the promise of synagogal honours over the festival should be kept,
but no more. But there is no indication that even this took place.
That year, as it happens, adverse winds held up the supply of citrons
(ethrogim) at the beginning of the feast of Tabernacles. The
Sephardim, more fortunate, had received theirs from Italy, and
generously gave one to the sister-community. It was jealously guarded
and passed round from hand to hand for the ritual benediction to be
made; but Marcus Moses and his family were not allowed to touch it.
But worse still was to come. Just at this period, his wife Freudche
gave birth to a daughter, and attended Synagogue shortly afterwards
for the ceremony of naming her. Even this privilege was refused, and
she returned home in a flood of tears.

A secondary dispute
had emerged by now. It seems that the communal pedagogues, themselves
Talmudists, had sided with their colleague, Johanan Holleschau, as
against the Rabbi and his supporters. As a punishment, the synagogue
authorities determined to exclude them from all communal honours,
such as being summoned to the Reading of the Law or invited to
festivities. Moreover, on the occasion of a dispute which arose
between a householder and a teacher regarding payment, Aaron Hart
(with Reb Aberle's approval) decided that the latter was to take a
solemn oath in synagogue that he had performed his functions
adequately; and other employers eagerly seized the opportunity to
insist on the same formality. The Rabbi's critics (headed by
Holleschau, who again canvassed support abroad) averred that this too
was against Rabbinic law. Thus more fuel was piled upon the flames of
the dispute, Aaron Hart being stigmatised as an utter
ignoramus.

Meanwhile, Marcus
Moses' influential friends on the Continent had not been idle. Judah
Leib Cohen, still in Rotterdam, saw the opportunity of avenging
himself on his former enemy, and released the London magnate from the
Ban, to which he considered that Rabbenu Tam's decision did not
properly apply--if only because of the culprit's ignorance that it
existed. More influential was the voice of Haham Zevi, who had been
approached by Hendele Cohen in Hamburg, and who, regardless of his
long friendship with Reb Aberle, was indignant at the treatment meted
out to a member of so distinguished a family. During the Intermediate
Days of Tabernacles, a letter from him (dated Tuesday, September
15th, before the Day of Atonement, but delayed in transmission by the
autumn storms) arrived in London, intimating that in his considered
opinion the penalty imposed was quite unwarranted by the
circumstances of the case and had no validity.

Reb Aberle,
intolerantly confident in his own scholarship even when he was
confronted by the greatest Rabbinical authority in Europe, could not
be shaken. Without much difficulty, he dragged the weak and
accommodating Aaron Hart in his train. (It was whispered by the
malicious that this was the result of bribery, to the tune of several
thousand Rhenish florins, though in view of the affluent condition of
the Rabbi's family this was patent scandal.) The proceedings against
Marcus Moses were reopened, being given a new turn by the solemn
formalities employed to impress the witnesses and by the presence
among the assessors of the saintly Rabbi Abraham Rovigo of Jerusalem,
a famous mystic and a father of the Jewish settlement in the Holy
Land, who happened to be in London at the time. Instead of being
annulled, the excommunication was reaffirmed, a minute now being
entered in the congregational registers (in opposition indeed to the
views of some of the more reasonable members) to the effect that when
the time came proper burial should be refused to the dissident's
remains. Marcus Moses was now left with only possible reply. He had
the support of eminent Rabbis in Hamburg, Rotterdam, and Amsterdam,
who considered that he was being treated unfairly, and that from the
point of view of Jewish law his action had not been so reprehensible.
He had tried to make his peace with the congregation, but had failed.
Doubtless, he hoped for practical sympathy from his friends of the
Sephardi community; but, just before the New Year of 1707, that body
pointedly passed a new regulation forbidding tudescos so much
as to enter their place of worship. Nothing was left to him now but
to fend for himself. In defiance of the recent regulation for
preserving communal unity, to which he had subscribed with all other
members, he opened a synagogue in his own house, within a few hundred
yards of Duke's Place. He furnished it with scrolls of the Law and
all the necessary appurtenances. On March 25th, 1707/8, he completed
the congregational organisation, and at the same time the breach with
the parent body, by acquiring a piece of ground in Hoxton on a
150-years' lease, at a rent of 10s. per annum, as the cemetery for
use in conjunction with his synagogue. As Rabbi, he installed his
family tutor and faithful supporter, Johanan Holleschau.6

We are informed so
minutely of this dispute in the community by reason of the spate of
publications that it occasioned. Aaron Hart set the ball rolling in a
little work, Urim veTumim (a title combining a reference to his name
and the Aaronic vestments with a hint of the transparent
righteousness of his cause) which appeared in London "under the rule
of our great, pious and victorious sovereign, Queen Anne" towards the
end of 1706 - the first book entirely in Hebrew to be published in
England. Holleschau replied verbosely in his Maaseh Rab ("A Great
Occurrence", with perhaps a sarcastic alternative meaning, "The Tale
of a Rabbi") which was published at Marcus Moses' expense very
shortly after, and was reprinted before long under a different title,
perhaps to command a wider public.7 Later, on the basis of these
works, the not over-creditable episode was brought to the notice of
the Gentile world in Germany by the pastor Adam Andreas Cnollen in
his New Things and Old, and by Johann Schudt in his Jüdische
Merckwürdigkeiten, where it was used to show the quarrelsome and
intolerant nature of the English Jews and the manner in which they
preserved internal jurisdiction. Jacob Emden, too, Haham Zevi's son,
gave an independent outline of the affair in his autobiography, Et
Sopher: and a generation ago on the basis of all these accounts,
David Kaufmann wrote an inimitable résumé, to which the
present abridgement is much indebted.

It is a somewhat
ironic consideration that the Hebrew printing-press in England owes
its origin to this quarrel. But these two primitive pamphlets have
other points of interest, apart from their somewhat crude format and
their frequent misprints. In the Maaseh Rab, Johanan Holleschau makes
the following observation, particularly significant if one regards it
as the first public utterance of Hebrew scholarship in this
country:

But I have
no fear; for we, our brethren of the House of Israel, live in the
kingdom of England, under rulers and princes and lords who deal
with us with kindness and mercy. They may indeed be reckoned as
the Pious Ones of the Nations of the world. If a man give them a
houseful of gold and silver they would do no injustice or
wrongdoing, but act only as is written in their lawbooks.

These publications
give us too a few very intimate glimpses into the social life of the
founders of the Great Synagogue. There was (as we have seen) a
characteristic passion for Jewish education. The community supported
at least five Hebrew teachers and two elementary schools (Hedarim).
The future mothers of the community were not neglected: Isaac ben
Joel, one of the signatories to Anschel Cohen's Bill of Divorce,
earned his living by going from house to house to teach young girls.
Instruction was, however, imparted through the medium of
Judaeo-German, with the result (recognised even then) of a lack of
sympathy between the children and their foreign-born tutors, and
sometimes a most unsatisfactory outcome. The London Jews were already
scattered: we are informed that some lived as much as a mile from the
synagogue, so that they were quite likely to remain in ignorance of
proclamations made in the traditional fashion from the Reading Desk.
The call of the English countryside had already made itself strongly
felt: Aaron Hart, when he was trying to arrange a compromise,
suggested a meeting with his adversary "on the face of the field, in
a place of gardens and orchards": and Holleschau apparently thought
that there was a place called "Country", where the wealthy members of
the congregation went whenever they could - sometimes even just before
the Sabbath - to enjoy the air and drink the waters. This, we learn,
made them lax about some ceremonial observances, as for example
abstention from milk not produced under Jewish supervision. On this
matter, incidentally, Rabbi Hart was very particular, and after he
entered into office he saw to it that special arrangements were made
for the Jewish milk-supply in the Metropolis. The members of the
community clearly indulged in a good deal of card-playing, as well as
of quarrelling and (in the case of Marcus Moses at least) a little
forthright bad language. They frequented the coffee-houses, where
Gentile clients heard all about their differences. Reb Aberle, for
example, attracted general attention when on the grounds of
ill-health he once partook of refreshment in one of these public
resorts on the Fast of Esther, without even troubling to retire into
a private box. From the depositions taken in connexion with the
case--all in homely Judaeo-German--we even know exactly how the
London Ashkenazim of this period spoke.8

The new congregation
became known ultimately as the Hambro' Synagogue. This title was long
believed to be in commemoration of the founder, generally called
among his coreligionists Mordecai Hambro', or Hamburger. This,
though, is not correct: for in fact the congregation subsequently
acquired other patrons, as we shall see, and was known by their name,
that of its founder not even being recorded in its roll of
benefactors. It is more probable that it was so entitled since it
became the centre of the Hamburg colony in London, who naturally
drifted to it, so that it preserved the specifically Hanseatic
tradition for a longer period. On the establishment of this
secessionist body, the original community became known as the Great
Synagogue--a title which is to be found from the middle of the
century at the latest.9

We may now return
from this stormy digression to the external history of the Great
Synagogue.

1 Clearly not his
father's brother, as is invariably stated by previous writers, for in
that case Moses and Aaron Hart would have belonged likewise to the
tribe of Levy--a fact that could not have escaped mention. But in his
will, Benjamin Levy speaks of Moses Hart as his brother-in-law (their
wives were sisters) and of Aaron Hart as his cousin.

2 The statement in
the works of reference that his rabbinate began in 1722 is completely
inaccurate. His enemy, Johanan Holleschau (for whom see below)
implies in his Maaseh Rab that Aaron Hart did not arrive in England
until 1703/4, and that he had previously been engaged in business
activities--not always with fortunate results. There may be some
truth in this: he or a namesake certainly attended the Leipzig Fair
in 1713. In 1704, Benjamin Levy had left "my cousin, Rabbi Fivish"
[i.e. Phoebus], £12 a year for three years.

3 Under the terms of
Benjamin Levy's will, Marcus Moses was to transmit one of his
benefactions to Hamburg.

4 The dispute
between the two and R. Judah Leib Cohen may possibly belong to this
period, during a return visit of the latter's to London.

5 There is some
evidence that the matter led to judicial proceedings in the secular
courts. In his accounts for 1706-8, Reb Aberle records various
payments (one of £5 7s., 6d.) for a law-suit with
"Berle"--perhaps Berl Cohen, brother of the Anschel Cohen whose
domestic troubles began the dispute.

6 It seems that
legal opinion was sought in connexion with this dispute. In the
Archives of the Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue there is an opinion
given to the Elders in June 1708 by Edward Hertley on the legality of
excommunication and of refusal of burial; and something similar seems
to be referred to in a cryptic note on the reverse of the title-page
of Holleschau's pamphlet, indicating that search had been made in the
records for a precedent to these events.

7 A close
examination of these two works has enabled me to fix their dates more
precisely. The Urim veTumim was produced in Heshvan 5467--i.e. at the
end of 1706, not in 1707: and it is mentioned in Holleschau's work,
both editions of which are therefore posterior to it. The first of
these (produced before Marcus Moses opened his own synagogue) has no
place of printing, and may be a London production, but it is more
likely to be from Amsterdam: as is certainly the case with the
second, dated Rosh Hodesh Ellul 5467 (=August 1707). This bears the
title Teshuboth haGeonin, certain Rabbinical opinions on the
pronunciation of Hebrew, etc., which the author had appended to the
first edition, here figuring ostensibly as the main subject
matter.

8 These depositions
are eleven in number. They are from Jacob Heilbuth, Aaron the Scribe,
the communal Magnate Juzpa Luza (who tried to excuse himself on the
ground that he was a grosser shakchan), Benjamin ben Jacob, the
scholarly Nathan son of the Parnas Moses Abraham, Mordecai ben Isaac,
Bunem Levi the teacher, his employer Joseph Levy, the Beadle (whose
name is not given), the teacher Mordecai ben Zadok, and Solomon
Zalman ben Raphael. (The last-named, who was Marcus Moses' neighbour
in Synagogue, is probably identical with the author and publisher
Solomon Zalman ben Moses Raphael London, of Nowogródek,
subsequently bookseller at Frankfort-on-Main, whose daughter made
herself known in due course as a Judaeo-German poetess: he was
perhaps son of the Rabbi Raphael b. Solomon Zalman who had died in
London in 1678.)

9 It may be
mentioned at this point that the traditional Hebrew equivalent is
Beth haKenessseth haGedolah, the feminine adjective agreeing with the
nearest word and not (as grammarians would prefer) with the
first.

Terms and Conditions, Licenses and Restrictions for the use of this website:

This website is
owned by JewishGen and the Jewish Genealogical Society of Great Britain. All
material found herein is owned by or licensed to us. You may view, download, and
print material from this site only for your own personal use. You may not post
material from this site on another website without our consent. You may not
transmit or distribute material from this website to others. You may not use
this website or information found at this site for any commercial purpose.